Saturday, October 24, 2009

This morning I read an article by the Cato Institute titled “Medicare For Everyone”? The lack of facts and fear-mongering tactics overwhelmed me. I almost had to lean over the porcelain bus and let hurl.
What a shame that this is allowed in print and called journalism!
They provide links that lead to articles that supposedly prove their point, but which is not proof at all, but just another opinion. Very few facts are presented. They read the article/document and then provide their own conclusions. They expect you to assume that because the evaluator of the contents of that article is perfect in his evaluations because he/she is a lawyer or has some other alphabet soup behind their name. They don't simply present the article link and then allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. Then, after adding their own evaluations, they then proceed to generate fear and emotionalism. This is yellow journalism prime time. Do a “google” on “yellow journalism” and you'll numerous links to what yellow journalism entails.

In the article “Fannie Med? Why a "Public Option" Is Hazardous to Your Health”, they state: “A full accounting shows that government programs cost more and deliver lower-quality care than private insurance.” An accounting by whom? Where are the hard facts and graphs that you can read and decide for yourself if this is true? They also say: “but that government can hide its inefficiencies and draw consumers away from private insurance, despite offering an inferior product.” Where are the hard facts that prove that the government hides its inefficiencies , and offer an inferior product? No facts. Just their conclusion.
Here's a real generator of cognitive dissonance in the same article: “A health insurance "exchange," where consumers choose between private health plans with artificially high premiums and a government program with artificially low premiums, would not increase competition. Instead, it would reduce competition by driving lower-cost private health plans out of business.” First it says “private health plans with artificially high premiums” . then a sentence later state “driving lower-cost health plans out of business”. Which is it? Are private plans higher or lower cost? And common sense tells you that a lower cost, private plan is NOT going to be driven out of business by a government plan just because it's a government plan!
Here's another conclusion without hard proof: “Congress should reject proposals to create a new government health insurance program — not for the sake of private insurers, who would be subject to unfair competition, but for the sake of American patients, who would be subject to unnecessary morbidity and mortality.”
Unnecessary morbidity and mortality? Where are the hard facts, charts and graphs that prove that? Not presented.
Please read the article and links for yourself. Note that 3 of the links don't present the article itself, but are links to buy the article so that you can then draw your own conclusions, which, of course, they don't want you to do.
I can't take much more of this kind of “journalism”!